This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: List of simplifications we should perform
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: List of simplifications we should perform
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 11 May 2001 21:27:44 -0300
- Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, dan at www dot cgsoftware dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <200105112118.RAA26438@caip.rutgers.edu><87y9s378xp.fsf@creche.redhat.com>
On May 11, 2001, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
Kaveh> I think most of these are already done in fold-const.c on
Kaveh> trees. How much benefit is there in redoing all the opts on
Kaveh> RTL? (Just curious, I'm sure there is some benefit.)
> I think it would be interesting if these things could be defined via
> some kind of lisp-like language working at the tree level (which is
> what, in my naivete, I imagine the RTL plan would amount to).
In a perfect world, a define_simplify would generate code that could
simplify trees and rtl.
> Java has fairly strict rules about what can, cannot, and must be
> folded.
Just like define_insn, define_simplify could have conditions, and
these could include tests about which language is being compiled.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me